Writ Of Certiorari Can't Be Used To Dispute Industrial Tribunal's Factual Findings: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The writ was filed by the Management after it was aggrieved by the tribunal's decision in favour of the Workman, holding his termination invalid. The High Court did not find any reason to interfere with the Tribunal's decision and upheld its factual findings.

Brief Facts:

The Workman was employed as a 'Mali' on daily wages by the Maharishi Daya Nand University, Rohtak (“Management) on 25.11.1995, with his services terminated on 07.08.1996 without explanation. The Workman made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak (“Tribunal”).

The Workman argued for non-payment of wages for June and July 1996 and claimed to have completed 240 working days within the year preceding his termination, stating that there was a clear violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act. Furthermore, he alleged the Management retained junior employees, disregarding the principle of "Last Come, First Go," which violated Sections 25-G & 25-H of the ID Act.

In response, the Management argued for its status as an 'autonomous statutory body' under the MDU Act, 1975, arguing it does not meet the definition of an 'industry.' It explained that the Workman engagement as a 'Mali' on daily wages on the muster roll, dependent on available work in the sub-division, as a temporary arrangement without any regular post.

The Tribunal acknowledged the undisputed duration of the Workman's employment and held that he worked for 227 days, which, when combined with 22 rest days, totalled 240 working days. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Workman completed the requisite 240 days and that his termination without notice, notice pay, or retrenchment compensation contravened Section 25-F of the ID Act.

Lastly, the Tribunal held that the Workman was entitled to reinstatement with continuity in service and 50% back-wages from the date of demand notice i.e. 09.08.1996.

Feeling aggrieved with the decision of the Tribunal, the Management approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court and challenged the award issued by the Tribunal.

Observations by the High Court:

The High Court agreed with the rationale put forth by the Tribunal and discerned no substantial grounds for intervention. Additionally, the High Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan [1964 (AIR) Supreme Court 477] and emphasized the limited scope of appellate jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It held that the High Court's role in issuing a writ of Certiorari primarily focuses on rectifying errors of jurisdiction or breaches of natural justice principles, rather than assuming the mantle of an appellate court. It held that this restraint is essential to maintain the integrity of the judicial process and respect the specialized functions of lower courts and tribunals.

Furthermore, the High Court held that the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226, particularly in the context of issuing a writ of Certiorari, is circumscribed. It is intended to correct legal errors, not factual disputes. The High Court has held that while errors of law apparent on the record are amenable to correction through a writ, factual findings reached by the Tribunal are beyond the purview of such proceedings, except in instances of egregious errors such as refusal to admit material evidence or basing findings on no evidence.

Moreover, during the pendency of the writ petition, the High Court held that the Workman was recommended for regularization along with other employees by the Management. It held that this underscored the continuity of the workman's service with the Management and the implementation of the impugned award.

The High Court found no compelling grounds to disturb the impugned award.

Case Title: Maharishi Daya Nand University, Rohtak vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak and another

2024 LiveLaw (PH) 142

Case Number: CWP-17397-2003 (O&M)

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Amit Rao, Advocate for Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. N.C. Kinra, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

Click Here To Read /Download Order